More thoughts on the VRA

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

The Constitution has provisions against Bills of Attainers, Ex Post Facto Laws, and Corruption of Blood. It, also, has general provisions concerning the presumption of innocence, and equal protection before the law.

If the Congress exercised power under the Fifteenth Amendment section 2, to outlaw certain forms of reapportionment then those forms of apportionment became illegal in 1965. In 1964, they were perfectly legal. Deeming certain states as having a pattern of violating a law not yet in effect is ex post facto.

No it isn't. Passing the law with the intent to punish those who had drawn the maps that were in effect in 1964 would have been.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I refer you to Smith v. Doe, where the requirements for sex offenders in Alaska to register themselves with the Department of Corrections even if their crimes were committed before the Act was passed were upheld. There is a difference between suspecting people of crimes based on their previous acts and punishing them for those acts. Ex post facto only applies to punishment.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Well, that is what happened. People whom are presumed innocent don't have to prove their innocence. It is the obligation of the state to prove their guilt. That presumption was taken away from states that were not guilty of any crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your argument seems to be based on the premise that "presumption of guilt" based on actions made before the VRA was passed constitutes a punishment, and therefore violates the ex post facto clause. I contend that the Alaska law that was disputed in Smith v. Doe effectively does the same thing by presuming that past sex offenders are more likely to repeat those acts, and the court in that case ruled that such a presumption is not a punishment, and therefore not a violation of the ex post facto clause. The courts have consistently ruled that there is no violation of the ex post facto clause unless there is retroactive punishment.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Well, that is what happened. People whom are presumed innocent don't have to prove their innocence. It is the obligation of the state to prove their guilt. That presumption was taken away from states that were not guilty of any crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your argument seems to be based on the premise that "presumption of guilt" based on actions made before the VRA was passed constitutes a punishment, and therefore violates the ex post facto clause. I contend that the Alaska law that was disputed in Smith v. Doe effectively does the same thing by presuming that past sex offenders are more likely to repeat those acts, and the court in that case ruled that such a presumption is not a punishment, and therefore not a violation of the ex post facto clause. The courts have consistently ruled that there is no violation of the ex post facto clause unless there is retroactive punishment.

A sex offender is a sex offender. If you want to make the analogy find a law that burdens the children and grandchildren of sex offenders.

I am specifically making the analogy in reference to the ex post facto argument. It stands to reason that future state legislatures and redistricting commissions would have to comply with the VRA just as future sex offenders would have to comply with the Alaska law.  That is a case of the law being applied proactively, not retroactively.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Wait, in the case of the VRA the presumption of guilt was based on past legal behavior, while in the case of child molesters in Alaska, it was based on past illegal behavior. There is no basis whatsoever to conflate legal and illegal behavior.

Wait, child molesting was illegal when those folks were convicted of molesting children. A new law was passed that treated convicted child molesters as suspect. Their status as suspects was based on their illegal behavior. Illegal acts foreited, rightly or wrongly, their presumption of innocence.

Southern legislatures did not engage in any illegal redistricting act. None, zero, zip, nada.

Those points are moot as far as the ex post facto argument goes, since the presumption of guilt is not punitive. If it is not punitive in a case where a law had actually been violated, then it can't be punitive in a case where no law had been violated. Whether it is fair or not is subject to debate (and I'll certainly give you that point), but it is not punitive, which is the legal precedent for determining whether the ex post facto clause has been violated.

You made an apples and oranges comparison between laws that presume someone duly convicted of a crime is suspect to offend again, with a law that presumes someone who did something perfectly legal is suspect to do the same thing now that it has been criminalized.

I made an apples to apples comparison between the presumption of guilt in the Alaska law and the presumption of guilt in the VRA.  If one is ruled as being not punitive, so must the other.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a fancy way to say that once a law is passed people have an obligation to obey that law.[/quote]

That's right!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That wasn't the question raised by you. That was the question raised by Napoleon, which is why it was in response to his post in the first place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That wasn't the question raised either. I'm not disputing that point. In fact, I even agree with it. I'm merely debunking your argument that the VRA constitutes an ex post facto law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And, suspecting people based on past lawful behavior is applying a law retroactively rather than proactively.[/quote]

But, as per SCOTUS rulings in cases such as Smith v. Doe, it only violates the ex post facto clause if the consequences are punitive, which they are not in this case.